Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • Advice To Graduates

    Always remember this:
    You are a miracle
    Made up of dancing atoms
    That can talk and sing,
    Listen and remember, and laugh,
    At times even at yourself.
    You are a miracle
    Whose atoms existed before time.
    Born of the Big Bang, you are connected
    To everything – to mountains and oceans,
    To the winds and wilderness, to the creatures
    Of the sea and air and land.
    You are a member of the human family.
    You are a miracle, entirely unique.
    There has never been another
    With your combination of talents, dreams,
    Desires and hopes. You can create.
    You are capable of love and compassion.
    You are a miracle.
    You are a gift of creation to itself.
    You are here for a purpose which you must find.
    Your presence here is sacred – and you will
    Change the world.

    *Dr. Krieger’s poem, composed in March 2000, was read at the Soka Junior and Senior High School graduation ceremony in Tokyo, during which the foundation’s World Citizenship Award was presented to Daisaku Ikeda, the president of Soka Gakkai International.

  • The Irrationality of Deterrence: A Modern Zen Koan

    “The sound of one finger pressing the button is the sound of a deeper silence, brought about by unrelenting apathy”

    What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the sound of one finger pressing the button? Surely the concept of deterrence is more enigmatic and perplexing than a Zen Koan!

    The concept of deterrence, which underlies the nuclear weapons policies of the United States and other nuclear weapons states, presupposes human rationality in all cases. It is based upon the proposition that a rational person will not attack you if he understands that his country will be subject to unacceptable damage by retaliation.

    What rational person would want his country to be exposed to unacceptable damage? Perhaps one who miscalculates. A rational person could believe that he could take action X, and that would not be sufficient for you to retaliate. Saddam Hussein, for example, believed that he could invade Kuwait without retaliation from the United States. He miscalculated, in part because he had been misled by the American Ambassador to Iraq who informed him that the US would not retaliate. Misinformation, misunderstanding, or misconstruing information could lead a rational person to miscalculate. We don’t always get our information straight, and we seldom have all of the facts.

    Deterrence is a Fool’s Game

    Even more detrimental to the theory of deterrence is irrationality. Can anyone seriously believe that humans always act rationally? Of course not. We are creatures who are affected by emotions and passions as well as intellect. Rationality is not to be relied upon. People do not always act in their own best interests. Examples abound. Almost everyone knows that smoking causes terrible diseases and horrible deaths, and yet hundreds of millions of people continue to smoke. We know that the stock markets are driven by passions as much as they are by rationality. The odds are against winning at the gambling tables in Las Vegas, and yet millions of people accept the odds, believing that they can win despite the odds.

    Nuclear deterrence is based on rationality — the belief that a rational leader will not attack a country with nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation. And yet, it is clearly irrational to believe that rationality will always prevail. Let me put it another way. Isn’t it irrational for a nation to rely upon deterrence, which is based upon humans always acting rationally (which they don’t), to provide for its national security? Those who champion deterrence appear rational, but in fact prove their irrationality by their unfounded faith in human rationality.

    With nuclear deterrence, the deterring country threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons if it is attacked. What if a country is attacked by nuclear weapons, but is unable to identify the source of the attack? How does it retaliate? Obviously, it either guesses, retaliates against an innocent country, or doesn’t retaliate. So much for deterrence. What if a national leader or terrorist with a nuclear weapon believed he could attack without being identified? It doesn’t matter whether he is right or wrong. It is his belief that he is unidentifiable that matters. So much for deterrence. What if a leader of a country doesn’t care if his country is retaliated against? What if he believes he has nothing more to lose, like a nuclear-armed Hitler in his bunker? So much for deterrence!

    It takes only minimal analysis to realize that nuclear deterrence is a fool’s game. The unfortunate corollary is that those who propound nuclear deterrence are fools in wise men’s garb. The further corollary is that we have entrusted the future of the human species to a small group of fools. These include the political and military leaders, the corporate executives who support them and profit from building the weapons systems, and the academics and other intellectuals like Henry Kissinger, who provide the theoretical underpinnings for the concept of deterrence.

    The Immorality of Nuclear Weapons

    Eleven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, we continue to live in a world in which a small number of nations rely upon the theory of deterrence to provide for their national security. In doing so, they threaten to kill tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of innocent people by retaliation should deterrence fail. To perhaps state what should be obvious, but doesn’t appear to our leaders to be: This is highly immoral. It also sets an extremely bad example for other states, whose leaders just might be thinking: If the strongest nations in the world are continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons for their national security, shouldn’t we be doing so also? Fortunately, most leaders in most countries are concluding that they should not.

    There is only one way out of the dilemma we are in, and that is to begin immediately to abolish nuclear weapons. This happens also to be required by international law as stated in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and as decided unanimously in the 1996 opinion of the International Court of Justice: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Morality, the law, and rationality converge in the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This is the greatest challenge of our time. The will of the people on this issue is being blocked by only a few leaders in a few countries. As the world’s most powerful nation, leadership should fall most naturally to the United States. Unfortunately, the policies of the United States have been driven by irrationality to the detriment of our own national security and the future of life on our planet. This is unlikely to change until the people of the United States exercise their democratic rights and demand policies that will end the nuclear threat to humanity. These include: negotiating a multilateral treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control; de-alerting nuclear weapons and separating warheads from delivery vehicles; making pledges of No First Use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances; stopping all nuclear testing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; reaffirming the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and applying strict international safeguards to all weapons-grade fissile materials and agreeing to no further production of such materials.

    A Call to Action

    The sound of one hand clapping is silence. That is the sound of most people in most places in response to the nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states. While they do not applaud these policies with both hands, they also do not raise their voices to oppose them.

    The sound of one finger pressing the button is the sound of a deeper silence, brought about by unrelenting apathy. It is the sound of the silence before a more final silence. It is an unbearable silence `for its consequences are beyond our power to repair. It is a silent death knell for humanity. We must raise our voices now with passion and commitment to prevent this pervasive silence from becoming the sound of our world.

  • State of the Nuclear Age

    Can you remember where you were when the Berlin Wall crumbled? Watching CNN in our global living room, we shared a hope that the end of the Cold War signaled an end to the madness of the nuclear arms race and we were on our way to a more peaceful world. I, like many here tonight, dreamed of building a nuclear weapons free world from the debris on the streets of Berlin.

    More than ten years later we stand instead on the verge of a new nuclear nightmare. India and Pakistan have the Bomb. The Russian economy, a new form of Russian roulette, makes safeguarding nuclear materials nearly impossible. Iraq ignores UN weapons inspectors and North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship challenges international agreements. And to the shock of most everyone in this room, the United States Senate defeated ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall we are on a dangerous backslide. The awful possibility of a nuclear accident and the threat of nuclear weapons continue to form a backdrop for our everyday lives.

    With your help, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation stays in the fight. It exerts bold leadership to educate the public about the dangers of the Nuclear Age. We are providing leadership in Abolition 2000, a network of some 1,800 civic groups and municipalities in 93 countries; we are one of eight leading organizations in The Middle Powers Initiative; and we are launching a Campaign to Alert America.

    The Foundation is home for the Coalition Against Gun Violence, The Renewable Energy Project, the Nuclear Files, The Peace Education Project, and Artists for Peace. We publish a highly respected journal, Waging Peace Worldwide, and we now receive over two million hits a year on our web sites, www.wagingpeace.org and www.NuclearFiles.org.

    Dreams have crumbled but are not crushed. Our first ever two-day Peace Leadership Training for Youth, this year was led by the brightest young people I know: Marc and Craig Kielburger and Roxanne Joyal, Carah Ong of Abolition 2000, and Zack Allen of the newly created Institute for Global Security. Santa Barbara’s young people will be offered tools to build the dream of a nuclear weapons free and peaceful future. I believe that the training of a new generation of peace leaders would be an accomplishment that this year’s recipient of the foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leader award, King Hussein, would applaud.

    While we work at training this new generation, we will also be doing everything in our power to assure that we fulfill the greatest responsibility of any generation – to preserve our world intact for the next generation.

  • The Most Important Moral Issue of our Time

    There are many reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are illegal, undemocratic, hugely expensive, and they undermine rather than increase security. But by far the most important reason to oppose these weapons is that they are profoundly immoral.

    Above all, the issue of nuclear weapons in our world is a deeply moral issue, and for the religious community to engage this issue is essential; for the religious community to ignore this issue is shameful.

    I have long believed that our country would become serious about providing leadership for the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world only when the churches, synagogues and mosques became serious about demanding such leadership.

    The abolition of nuclear weapons is the most important issue of our time. I do not say this lightly. I know how many other important life and death issues there are in our world. I say it because nuclear weapons have the capacity to end all human life on our planet and most other forms of life. This puts them in a class by themselves.

    Although I refer to nuclear weapons, I don’t believe that these are really weapons. They are instruments of mass annihilation. They incinerate, vaporize and destroy indiscriminately. They are instruments of portable holocaust. They destroy equally soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    Nuclear weapons hold all Creation hostage. In an instant they could destroy this city or any city. In minutes they could leave civilization, with all its great accomplishments, in ruins. These cruel and inhumane devices hold life itself in the balance.

    There is no moral justification for nuclear weapons. None. As General Lee Butler, a former commander in chief of the US Strategic Command, has said: “We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it.”

    That nuclear weapons are an absolute evil was the conclusion of the President of the International Court of Justice, Mohammed Bedjaoui, after the Court was asked to rule on the illegality of these weapons.

    I think that it is a reasonable conclusion – the only conclusion a sane person could reach. I would add that our reliance on these evil instruments debases our humanity and insults our Creator.

    Albert Einstein was once asked his opinion as to what weapons would be used in a third world war. He replied that he didn’t know, but that if there was a third world war a fourth world war would probably be fought with sticks and stones. His response was perhaps overly optimistic.

    Controlling and eliminating these weapons is a responsibility that falls to those of us now living. It is a responsibility we are currently failing to meet.

    Ten years after the end of the Cold War there are still some 36,000 nuclear weapons in the world, mostly in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Some 5,000 of these weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on warning and subject to accident or miscalculation.

    Today arms control is in crisis. The US Senate recently failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first treaty voted down by the Senate since the Treaty of Versailles. Congress has also announced its intention to deploy a National Missile Defense “as soon as technologically feasible.” This would abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of arms control. The Russian Duma has not yet ratified START II, which was signed in 1993.

    Efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons are also in crisis. There is above all the issue of Russian “loose nukes.” There is no assuredness that these weapons are under control. There is also the new nuclear arms race in South Asia. There is also the issue of Israel possessing nuclear arms — with the implicit agreement of the Western nuclear weapons states — in their volatile region of the world.

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty is also in crisis. This will become more prominent when the five year Review Conference for the treaty is held this spring. Most non-nuclear weapons states believe that the nuclear weapons states have failed to meet their obligations for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. More than 180 states have met their obligations not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The five nuclear weapons states, however, have failed to meet their obligations for good faith efforts to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

    The US government continues to consider nuclear weapons to be “essential” to its security. NATO has referred to nuclear weapons as a “cornerstone” of its security policy.

    Russia recently proposed that the US and Russia go beyond the START II agreement and reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,500 weapons each. The US declined saying that it was only prepared to go down to 2,000 to 2,500 weapons each. Such is the insanity of our time.

    Confronting this insanity are four efforts I will describe briefly.

    • The New Agenda Coalition is a group of middle power states – including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa — calling for an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states for the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. UN Resolutions of the New Agenda Coalition have passed the General Assembly by large margins in 1998 and 1999, despite lobbying by the US, UK and France to oppose these resolutions.
    • A representative of the New Agenda Coalition recently stated at a meeting at the Carter Center: “A US initiative today can achieve nuclear disarmament. It will require a self-denying ordnance, which accepts that the five nuclear weapons states will have no nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. By 2005 the United States will already have lost the possibility of such an initiative.” I agree with this assessment. The doors of opportunity, created a decade ago by the end of the Cold War, will not stay open much longer.
    • The Middle Powers Initiative is a coalition of eight prominent international non-governmental organizations that are supporting the role of middle power states in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Middle Powers Initiative recently collaborated with the Carter Center in bringing together representatives of the New Agenda Coalition with high-level US policymakers and representatives of civil society. It was an important dialogue. Jimmy Carter took a strong moral position on the issue of nuclear disarmament, and you should be hearing more from him in the near future.
    • Abolition 2000 is a global network of more than 1,400 diverse civil society organizations from 91 countries on six continents. The primary goal of Abolition 2000 is a negotiated treaty calling for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework. One of the current efforts of Abolition 2000 is to expand its network to over 2000 organizations by the time of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference this spring. You can find out more about Abolition 2000 at www.abolition2000.org
    • A final effort I will discuss is the establishment of a US campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has hosted a series of meetings with key US leaders in the area of nuclear disarmament. These include former military, political, and diplomatic leaders, among them General Lee Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, and Ambassador Jonathan Dean.

    I believe that we have worked out a good plan for a Campaign to Alert America, but we currently lack the resources to push this campaign ahead at the level that it requires. We are doing the best we can, but we are not doing enough. We need your help, and the help of religious groups all over this country.

    I will conclude with five steps that the leaders of the nuclear weapons states could take now to end the nuclear threat to humanity. These are steps that we must demand of our political leaders. These are steps that we must help our political leaders to have the vision to see and the courage to act upon.

    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    The future is in our hands. I urge you to join hands and take a strong moral stand for humanity and for all Creation. We do it for the children, for each other, and for the future. The effort to abolish nuclear weapons is an effort to protect the miracle that we all share, the miracle of life.

    Each of us is a source of hope. Will you turn to the persons next to you, and tell them, “You give me hope,” and express to them your commitment to accept your share of responsibility for saving humanity and our beautiful planet.

    Together we will change the world!

     

  • Open Letter to the Leaders of all Non-Nuclear Weapons States

    Your Excellencies:

    The outcome of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which begins April 24, 2000 at the United Nations in New York, will play a significant role in determining the security of humanity in the 21st century. Your personal commitment to a successful outcome of this Review Conference is essential to strengthening nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, and thus to humanity’s future.

    The nuclear perils to humanity are not sufficiently widely recognized nor appreciated. In the words of writer Jonathan Schell, we have been given “the gift of time,” but that gift is running out. For this reason vision and bold action are called for.

    General George Lee Butler, a former Commander in Chief of all US strategic nuclear weapons, poses these questions: “By what authority do succeeding generations of leaders in the nuclear weapons states usurp the power to dictate the odds of continued life on our planet? Most urgently, why does such breathtaking audacity persist at the moment when we should stand trembling in the face of our folly and united in our commitment to abolish its most deadly manifestation?”

    It is time to heed the warnings of men like General Butler, who know intimately the risks and consequences of nuclear war. The time is overdue for a New Agenda on nuclear disarmament. What is needed is commitment and leadership on behalf of humanity and all life.

    The heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty agreement is the link between non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear weapons states agree in the Treaty not to develop nor acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear weapons states agreeing to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. The Treaty has become nearly universal and the non-nuclear weapons states, with a few notable exceptions, have adhered to the non-proliferation side of the bargain. The progress on nuclear disarmament, however, has been almost entirely unsatisfactory, leading many observers to conclude that the intention of the nuclear weapons states is to preserve indefinitely a two-tier structure of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”

    At the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference many countries and non-governmental organizations challenged the nuclear disarmament record of the nuclear weapons states. They argued that to extend the Treaty indefinitely without more specific progress from the nuclear weapons states was equivalent to writing a blank check to states that had failed to keep their promises for 25 years. These countries and NGOs urged instead that the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be linked to progress on Article VI promises of good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. Pressure from the nuclear weapons states led to the Treaty being extended indefinitely, but only with agreement to a set of non-binding Principles and Objectives that was put forward by the Republic of South Africa.

    These Principles and Objectives provided for:

    — completion of a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996;

    — early conclusion of negotiations for a non-discriminatory and universally applicable treaty banning production of fissile materials; and

    — determined pursuit by the nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of their elimination.

    Progress toward these goals has been unimpressive. A CTBT was adopted in 1996, but has been ratified only by the UK and France among the nuclear weapons states. The US argues that the CTBT necessitates its $4.6 billion per year “Stockpile Stewardship” program, which enables it to design new nuclear weapons and modify existing nuclear weapons in computer-simulated virtual reality tests and “sub-critical” nuclear tests. Despite the existence of this provocative program, ratification of the CTBT by the US Senate was rejected in October 1999. The US and Russia continue to conduct “sub-critical” nuclear weapons tests. Negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty have yet to begin, and the “determined pursuit” promise has been systematically and progressively ignored by the nuclear weapons states.

    In its 1997 Presidential Decision Directive 60, the US reaffirmed nuclear weapons as the “cornerstone” of its security policy and opened the door to the use of nuclear weapons against a country using chemical or biological weapons. The US, UK and France have also resisted proposals by other NATO members for a review of NATO nuclear policy. Under urgent prodding by Canada and Germany, they did finally agree to a review of nuclear policy, but this will not be completed until December 2000, after the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    The US seems intent on moving ahead with a National Missile Defense plan, even if it means abrogating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which most analysts view as a bedrock treaty for further nuclear arms reductions. The US is also moving ahead with space militarization programs. In the US Space Command’s “Vision for 2020” document, the US proclaims its intention of “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.”

    Russia has abandoned its policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons in favor of a policy mirroring that of the western nuclear weapons states. The START II agreement is stalled and is still not ratified by the Russian Duma. The date for completion of START II has, in fact, been set back for five years from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2007. Negotiations on START III are stalled.

    China is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. India and Pakistan, countries that have consistently criticized the discriminatory nature of the NPT, have both overtly tested nuclear weapons and joined the nuclear weapons club. Israel, another country refusing to join the NPT, will not acknowledge that it has developed nuclear weapons and has imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu for more than 13 years for speaking out on Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

    In the face of the intransigence of the nuclear weapons states, the warning bells are sounding louder and louder. These warnings have been put forward by the Canberra Commission, the International Court of Justice, retired generals and admirals, past and present political leaders, the New Agenda Coalition, the Tokyo Forum, and many other distinguished individuals and non-governmental organizations working for peace and disarmament.

    The future of humanity is being held hostage to self-serving policies of the nuclear weapons states. This is an intolerable situation, not only for the myopic vision it represents and the disrespect for the rest of the world that is implicit in these policies, but, more important, for the squandering of the precious opportunity to eliminate the nuclear weapons threat to our common future.

    The more nuclear weapons in the world, the greater the danger to humanity. At present we lack even an effective accounting of the numbers and locations of these weapons and the nuclear materials to construct them. The possibilities of these weapons or the materials to make them falling into the hands of terrorists, criminals or potential new nuclear weapons states has increased since the breakup of the former Soviet Union.

    What is to be done? Will the 2000 NPT Review Conference again be bullied by strong-armed negotiating techniques and false promises of the nuclear weapons states? Or will the non-nuclear weapons states, the vast majority of the world’s nations, unite in common purpose to demand that the nuclear weapons states fulfill their long-standing promises and obligations in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is the greatest challenge of our time. We ask you to step forward and meet this challenge by demanding in a unified voice that the nuclear weapons states fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As we stand on the threshold of a new century and millennium, we ask that you call upon the nuclear weapons states to take the following steps to preserve the Non-Proliferation Treaty and end the threat that nuclear weapons arsenals pose to all humanity:

    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • Publicly acknowledge the weaknesses and fallibilities of deterrence: that deterrence is only a theory and is clearly ineffective against nations whose leaders may be irrational or suicidal; nor can deterrence assure against accidents, misperceptions, miscalculations, or terrorists.
    • Publicly acknowledge the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law as stated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 opinion, and further acknowledge the obligation under international law for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.
    • Publicly acknowledge the immorality of threatening to annihilate millions, even hundreds of millions, of people in the name of national security.
    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Establish an international accounting system for all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.
    • Sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, cease laboratory and subcritical nuclear tests designed to modernize and improve nuclear weapons systems, cease construction of Megajoule in France and the National Ignition Facility in the US and end research programs that could lead to the development of pure fusion weapons, and close the remaining nuclear test sites in Nevada and Novaya Zemlya.
    • Re-affirm the commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and cease efforts to violate that Treaty by the deployment of national or theater missile defenses, and cease the militarization of space.
    • Support existing nuclear weapons free zones, and establish new ones in the Middle East, Central Europe, North Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
    • Set forth a plan to complete the transition under international control and monitoring to zero nuclear weapons by 2020, with agreed upon levels of nuclear disarmament to be achieved by the NPT Review Conferences in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
    • Begin to reallocate the billions of dollars currently being spent annually for maintaining nuclear arsenals ($35 billion in the U.S. alone) to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.
    • You have a unique historical opportunity to unite in serving humanity. We urge you to seize the moment.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger

    President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    cc: Leaders of United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel

  • A Twelve Step Program to End Nuclear Weapons Addiction

    The following steps should be taken by the nuclear weapons states to assure a full commitment to ending the nuclear weapons threat that now hangs over the heads of all humanity and clouds our future:

    1. Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.

    2. Publicly acknowledge the weaknesses and fallibilities of deterrence: that deterrence is only a theory and is clearly ineffective against nations whose leaders may be irrational or suicidal; nor can deterrence assure against accidents, misperceptions, miscalculations, or terrorists.

    3. Publicly acknowledge the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under international law as stated by the International Court of Justice in its 1996 opinion, and further acknowledge the obligation under international law for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    4. Publicly acknowledge the immorality of threatening to annihilate millions, even hundreds of millions, of people in the name of national security.

    5. De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    6. Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.

    7. Establish an international accounting system for all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.

    8. Sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, cease laboratory and subcritical nuclear tests designed to modernize and improve nuclear weapons systems, cease construction of Megajoule in France and the National Ignition Facility in the US and end research programs that could lead to the development of pure fusion weapons, and close the remaining nuclear test sites in Nevada and Novaya Zemlya.

    9. Re-affirm the commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and cease efforts to violate that Treaty by the deployment of national or theater missile defenses, and cease the militarization of space.

    10. Support existing nuclear weapons free zones, and establish new ones in the Middle East, Central Europe, North Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.

    11.Set forth a plan to complete the transition under international control and monitoring to zero nuclear weapons by 2020, with agreed upon levels of nuclear disarmament to be achieved by the NPT Review Conferences in 2005, 2010 and 2015.

    12. Begin to reallocate the billions of dollars currently being spent annually for maintaining nuclear arsenals ($35 billion in the U.S. alone) to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • U.S. Military Action Undermines the Rule of Law

    When it was first announced by President Clinton that the United States would launch a military strike against Iraq, I wondered about the legality of this attack under international law. I carefully read President Clinton’s speech announcing the attack, and found a reference to a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Iraq’s defiance of the UN inspection team by a vote of 15 to zero. Upon review of the resolution, however, I found that it contained no authorization for the use of force against Iraq. Nor did any previous Security Council resolution, except for the 1991 resolution authorizing the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, an issue clearly not relevant to the current situation.

    President Clinton announced that the purpose of the military action was “to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.” Clinton and his security advisors, who he announced were unanimous in their recommendation to attack, were responding to a report filed by Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team in Iraq.

    But this is what the Washington Post wrote about Butler’s report, “Butler’s conclusions were welcome in Washington, which helped orchestrate the terms of the Australian diplomat’s report. Sources in New York and Washington said Clinton officials played a direct role in shaping Butler’s text during multiple conversations with him Monday at secure facilities in the U.S. mission to the United Nations.”

    The article in the Washington Post also pointed out that a “companion report” by the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed “broad satisfaction with Iraq’s cooperation.”

    What this suggests is that there were reasonable differences of opinion about Iraq’s cooperation with the UN, and that there was improper collusion between Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team who is supposed to act in a neutral manner, and U.S. officials. If this is true, Butler was clearly acting in an improper manner and bears some of the responsibility for the military action against Iraq. If it is true, Kofi Annan should act immediately to fire Butler.

    President Clinton justified the attack as being necessary “to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.” This justification raises many questions. What was the “national interest” that was being protected? How was it determined? Should any country have the right to attack another country in the name of national interest without proper authority under international law?

    The behavior of President Clinton and his “security team” sends the wrong message to the international community. It is a similar message to the one they sent when they attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which they unconvincingly claimed was a chemical weapons factory.

    The message we are sending to the world is that we are the big boys on the block, and we are willing to throw our weight around regardless of the law. The Russian Duma referred to our attack in a nearly unanimous vote as “international terrorism.” This does not bode well for our future relations with the Russians.

    The Pakistani Parliament unanimously characterized the military action against Iraq as “an attaack on humanity and the Islamic world.” This does not bode well for our relations with other Islamic nations.

    Of the many consequences of our attack against Iraq, I believe the most serious is our undermining of the rule of law. For any use of force against Iraq, we should have had express authority from the UN Security Council, which in all of its resolutions on this matter indicated clearly that it would “remain actively seized of the matter.” By choosing not to do so, we once again demonstrated our willingness to defy international law for vague reasons of national interest.

    The bottom line is that our attack against Iraq was bullyism, and undermines international law. It did not serve the interests of the United States, nor of the world. Kofi Annan had it right when he said, “This is a sad day for the United Nations and for the world.”

  • Nuclear Weapons and Sustainability

    Nothing threatens sustainability more than nuclear weapons. And yet these weapons are rarely considered in discussions of sustainability, which tend to focus on resources and environmental degradation. The simple fact is that nuclear weapons are capable of destroying not only our most precious global resources and degrading our global environment, but of destroying civilization if not humanity itself. The possession and threat to use nuclear weapons also afflicts the souls and spirits of their possessors.

    Nuclear weapons are a holocaust waiting to occur, but this understanding is obscured by comforting though unprovable theories of deterrence. Decision makers and the public alike confuse deterrence with defense. In fact, deterrence is not defense. Deterrence is only a theory that an attack can be prevented by threatening to retaliate. It is a bad theory because deterrence cannot prevent attacks that occur by accident or miscalculation, nor attacks by terrorists or criminals who have no fixed place to retaliate against.

    National security “experts,” such as Henry Kissinger, who propound theories of deterrence, are the sorcerers of our time. The public is expected to be humble before the apparent wisdom of such self-absorbed theorists. Clearly, there has been a price to pay for accepting their rhetorical invocations in the name of national security. The price is the willingness to place in jeopardy our human future, and our own humanity.

    Nuclear weapons incinerate human beings and other forms of life on a massive scale. This lesson was not lost on the people of Japan, who experienced two attacks with atomic weapons. It was apparently lost, however, on those who used these weapons. The possessors of nuclear weapons, and particularly Americans and Russians, suffer the delusion that they are protected by these weapons.

    Obstacles to the elimination of nuclear weapons include official secrecy concerning nuclear policies, lack of public discourse on these policies, confusion and muddled thinking regarding deterrence by policy elites, and a lack of courage and imagination on the part of political leaders. All of these translate into a lack of political will to radically change nuclear policies and take bold steps toward the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Until the public demands the abolition of nuclear weapons, the world will remain hostage to these instruments of genocide residing in the hands of mere mortals. What will arouse the public from its stupor? This may be the most important question of our time. Moral and legal arguments have not prevailed. Arguments concerning the concentration of power and undermining of democracy have not succeeded. Not even arguments concerning the vulnerability of citizens of nuclear weapons states to others’ nuclear weapons have awakened the power of the people.

    We live at a critical time in human history, in which we share the responsibility to pass the future on intact to the generations to follow. On the shoulders of those of us now living has fallen the responsibility to end the nuclear weapons era, or to face the almost certain spread of nuclear weapons and the likely use again, by accident or design, of these instruments of genocide.

    Sustainability and a future free of nuclear weapons are inseparable. Anyone concerned with a sustainable future should embrace the abolition of nuclear weapons, and become a vocal and active advocate of this cause. Because nuclear weapons abolition affects the future as well as the present, this cause provides an important challenge to the youth of today, who are the inheritors of the future.

  • The Challenge Posed by India and Pakistan

    In a three-week period, India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, thus becoming new members of the nuclear weapons club. Their tests have brought forth broad, even jubilant, support among the Indian and Pakistani people. Following the Pakistani tests, one Pakistani clerk effused, “Pakistan is now a superpower.”

    It is not surprising that India and Pakistan would view nuclear weapons as a path to international security and prestige. The five original members of the nuclear weapons club – the U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China – have treated their possession of nuclear weapons this way for decades.

    The major problem is not that India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear tests. It is that they, like the other members of the nuclear weapons club, have indicated by their tests that they now choose to rely upon nuclear weapons to maintain their national security.

    The Indians and Pakistanis are doing no more – in fact, much less – than the United States and the former Soviet Union did throughout the Cold War in relying upon their nuclear arsenals for deterrence. The policy of nuclear deterrence – despite the end of the Cold War and ostensibly friendly relations – continues to be the official policy of the U.S. and Russia, as it is of the other nations in the nuclear weapons club.

    The nuclear weapons states claim that there has been no nuclear war because of their nuclear weapons rather than in spite of them. If deterrence is a viable theory, however, there should be no problem with it being adopted by all states, including India and Pakistan.

    Deterrence Is Only a Theory

    The truth is that deterrence is only a theory, and not one that is believed to work universally. If deterrence were in fact considered reliable, nuclear weapons proliferation should in theory be encouraged rather than opposed.

    I doubt if anyone believes that the Indian subcontinent is safer now that India and Pakistan have demonstrated their nuclear weapons capabilities. It is generally and rightly recognized that the region has become far more dangerous with this new capacity for nuclear annihilation.

    Imagine, for example, that the Indians decided to respond to the Pakistani threat by a pre-emptive first-strike to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. Should the Indians fail, the Pakistanis might respond with a nuclear attack. Even the fear of such pre-emptive action by the Indians might lead the Pakistanis to themselves launch a pre-emptive first-strike against India. There are many other possible scenarios that might lead to nuclear war.

    Just as the problem is not the nuclear weapons tests, but the policies that they represent, the danger is not limited to South Asia. By the Indian and Pakistani tests, we are reminded of the danger that exists from all nuclear weapons in the world – those in the hands of all nuclear weapons states. We are also reminded that nuclear weapons proliferation remains a serious threat to regional and global stability.

    There are not responsible and irresponsible nuclear weapons states. All are irresponsible because they base their national security on weapons which have the capacity to murder millions of innocent people.

    A Worst Case Scenario

    As a worst case scenario, and one that has been long understood, a large-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia could result in ending human civilization, such as it is, and destroying the human species and most life on earth. Being willing to run this risk does not demonstrate a high level of responsibility – quite the opposite.

    The choice before us is whether to deal with India and Pakistan as an isolated regional problem, or whether to view their nuclear tests as a wake-up call to commence international negotiations to achieve a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.

    The first option is not viable. India and Pakistan will not reverse their course unless the other nuclear weapons states clearly demonstrate their commitment to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Following its tests, India issued a statement appealing for such a commitment in the form of a Nuclear Weapons Convention: “India calls on all nuclear weapons states and indeed the international community to join with it in opening early negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention so that these weapons can be dealt with in a global, nondiscriminatory framework as other weapons of mass destruction have been, through the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

    Nuclear “Haves” and “Have-Nots”

    I have long maintained that a world with a small number of nuclear “haves” and a much larger number of nuclear “have-nots” is unstable and unrealistic. This instability has begun to manifest itself in a detrimental way through nuclear proliferation. We will continue in this direction unless the course is reversed by serious negotiations among the nuclear weapons states to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.

    The United States is capable of providing the leadership to attain a world free of nuclear weapons. The U.S., however, has shown no inclination to assert this leadership. In fact, U.S. policies under the current administration have all been directed toward maintaining the existing structure of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots”. This must change. It is our best hope for preventing a nuclear holocaust in the 21st century.

    One other possibility exists. It is for other nations of the world, without the U.S. but including other nuclear weapons states, to move forward on a treaty banning nuclear weapons in the way that the treaty to ban landmines was created without U.S. participation. Unless the U.S. steps forward as a leader on this issue, I would hope that other nations will proceed without us.

    At the edge of a new millennium, the nation state system is challenged on many fronts to solve global environmental and security problems. The greatest of these challenges is posed by weapons of man’s own creation, the most dangerous of which are nuclear weapons capable of destroying humankind. Will we meet this challenge? Are there leaders among us capable of picking up where Gorbachev left off that can lead the world to end the nuclear weapons era?

    Such leaders will have to pierce the illusions of security that have been created to manipulate the people, now including the people of India and Pakistan, into believing that nuclear weapons should be a source of national pride. Nuclear weapons are quite simply weapons of mass destruction, meaning mass murder, and should be viewed as a national disgrace. But where are the leaders to say this?

    Leadership from the People

    As in all great issues of social change, the leadership for a nuclear weapons free world will have to arise from the people. This grassroots leadership is already emerging from Abolition 2000, a global network working to eliminate nuclear weapons, which is now composed of nearly 1100 citizen action groups from around the world.

    The challenge posed to the world by the two new members of the nuclear weapons club is nothing less than creating a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a challenge of finding new means of achieving security and settling our differences without resorting to weapons of mass destruction.

  • Linus Pauling and the Spirit of Peace: A Tale of Two Petitions

    Linus Pauling was undoubtedly a great scientist. This is attested to by his Nobel Prize in chemistry and his many discoveries in this field. More important, from my perspective, he was also a great human being. He had an unflagging commitment to peace, which he expressed with intelligence and courage.

    I met Linus Pauling in April 1991, when he was presented with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award for Distinguished Peace Leadership. It was a wonderful occasion, at which we also presented the XIVth Dalai Lama with an award for Distinguished Peace Leadership.

    In April 1991 the Persian Gulf War had just ended, and Americans were in a particularly patriotic mood. Yellow ribbons abounded, and President Bush’s approval ratings were above 90 percent. In his acceptance speech, before an audience of more than 800 people, Dr. Pauling chose to address what had just happened in the Persian Gulf. He began with a syllogism:

    “To kill and maim people is immoral.
    War kills and maims people.
    War is immoral.”

    For Pauling it was that simple. On January 8th of that year he had taken out a quarter page ad in the New York Times with the heading, “Stop the Rush to War!” He paid for the ad himself. On January 18th, three days after the war began, he published another advertisement, this time in the Washington Post. It was an Open Letter to President Bush, and it contained the syllogism concluding that war is immoral. Again, Dr. Pauling paid for the ad himself.

    In his acceptance speech for our award, Pauling noted that in the military operations of the Persian Gulf War some 300,000 Iraqis had been killed while some 150 Americans had died. The ratio was 2,000 to one. He concluded from this that what happened in the Persian Gulf was not a war.

    “In a war,” he said, “you have opposing forces that fight and there are deaths on both sides and finally one side wins. In the old days perhaps this was a demonstration of the democratic process – the side with the biggest number of fighters won. This wasn’t a war. This you could call a massacre or slaughter, perhaps even murder.”

    Speaking Truth to Power

    Linus Pauling was extremely direct. He stated the truth as he saw it. He was honest and without concern that his views might be very unpopular. He spoke truth to power. He spoke truth whomever he addressed. He spoke truth in the face of overwhelming and irrational patriotic fervor.

    In 1955, Pauling was one of 11 prominent signers of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. That document called for an end to war, and posed the problem of our powerful new weapons in this way: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” The Manifesto concluded with this famous statement:

    “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings; remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    In 1958 Linus Pauling published a book entitled No More War! In this book he stated, “I believe that there will never again be a great world war, if only the people of the United States and of the rest of the world can be informed in time about the present world situation. I believe that there will never be a war in which the terrible nuclear weapons – atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, superbombs – are used. I believe that the development of these terrible weapons forces us to move into a new period in the history of the world, a period of peace and reason, when world problems are not solved by war or by force, but are solved by the application of man’s power of reason, in a way that does justice to all nations and that benefits all people.”

    The Scientists’ Petition To Stop Nuclear Testing

    Pauling described in that book the terrible consequences of nuclear war. He also described the spurious arguments of Edward Teller for a so-called “clean” nuclear bomb. He also described a petition which he had prepared and circulated to scientists calling for an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. The petition stated:

    “We, the scientists whose names are signed below, urge that an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs be made now.

    “Each nuclear bomb test spreads an added burden of radioactive elements over every part of the world. Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world and causes damage to the pool of human germ plasm such as to lead to an increase in the number of seriously defective children that will be born in future generations.

    “So long as these weapons are in the hands of only three powers an agreement for their control is feasible. If testing continues, and the possession of these weapons spreads to additional governments, the danger of outbreak of a cataclysmic nuclear war through reckless action of some irresponsible national leader will be greatly increased.

    “An international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs now could serve as a first step toward a more general disarmament and the ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons, averting the possibility of a nuclear war that would be a catastrophe to all humanity.

    “We have in common with our fellow men a deep concern for the welfare of all human beings. As scientists we have knowledge of the dangers involved and therefore a special responsibility to make those dangers known. We deem it imperative that immediate action be taken to effect an international agreement to stop testing of all nuclear weapons.”

    The petition was originally prepared for American scientists, but soon it was being signed by scientists around the world. By early 1958 the petition had been signed by 9,235 scientists, including 36 Nobel Laureates. On January 15, 1958, Pauling presented the petition with these signatures to Dag Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Later the number of signatories of the petition grew to 11,021, representing 49 countries, and 37 Nobel Laureates. All of these signatures were collected on the initiative of Linus Pauling and his wife, Ava Helen, who played a very instrumental role in his life and his work for peace.

    Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

    As a result of Dr. Pauling’s efforts and those of others, a Partial Test Ban Treaty was achieved in 1963. This was far less than Pauling had worked for. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the oceans, and outer space, but it allowed testing to continue underground. In reality, it was an environmental treaty rather than a disarmament treaty. The treaty ultimately stopped atmospheric nuclear testing, with all of its hazards for human health. It did not, however, stop the nuclear arms race, which continued unabated for the next 35 years and in certain respects continues today.

    Dr. Pauling’s petition called for the “ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons.” This great goal remains to be achieved, and it falls to us – all of us – to achieve it. This brings me to the tale of the second petition, a tale all of us can participate in completing.

    In August 1997 a few of us working on Abolition 2000, which is a global network to abolish nuclear weapons, met in Santa Barbara for a brainstorming session. We decided that we needed a vehicle to go directly to the people for the cause of nuclear weapons abolition. We developed a simple petition, with three main points:

    1. End the Nuclear Threat. End the nuclear threat by dealerting all nuclear weapons, withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles and disabling them, committing to unconditional no first use of nuclear weapons, and ceasing all nuclear weapons tests, including laboratory tests and “subcriticals.”

    2. Sign the Treaty. Sign a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000, agreeing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework.

    3. Reallocate Resources. Reallocate resources to ensure a sustainable global future and to redress the environmental devastation and human suffering caused by nuclear weapons production and testing, which have been disproportionately borne by the world’s indigenous peoples.

    Abolition 2000 Petition, Gathering the Signatures

    A month later, I was in Japan to help commemorate the 40th anniversary of the call for the abolition of nuclear weapons issued by Josei Toda, the second president of Soka Gakkai. In speaking with an international youth group of Soka Gakkai International, I mentioned the Abolition 2000 petition and spoke of its three important points. To my great surprise, I received word the next month that the youth division of Soka Gakkai in the Hiroshima region had decided to gather signatures on this petition. They set their initial goal at one million signatures.

    About a month later, I learned that signatures were to be gathered throughout Japan and the goal was 5 million signatures. In the end, in just three months, from November 1997 to January 1998, over 13 million signatures were gathered in Japan. One out of every nine persons in Japan signed the petition.

    In April 1998 a representative sample of these signatures was presented in Geneva to Ambassador Wyzner, the chair of the 1998 preparatory committee meeting for the year 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    The effort by the Soka Gakkai youth in Japan was highly commendable. I’m sure it would have been welcomed and applauded by both Josei Toda and Linus Pauling. But the effort must not stop there. We are continuing to gather signatures in other parts of the world, including the United States.

    In my view, it is the United States, more than any other country, that must change its position on the abolition of nuclear weapons. Until the United States becomes seriously involved in this effort, the effort cannot succeed. And I am convinced that the United States will not become the leader of this effort until the people of this country demand of their government that it do so.

    This is why this petition is so important, and why I enlist your help in reaching out to people all over this country to call for the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons. If we were to gather a number of signatures proportionate to our population as were gathered in Japan, we would need more than 25 million signatures. Can you imagine the power of presenting 25 million American signatures to the President and Congress? They would have to listen to us. They would have to act to achieve this end.

    Moral Countries Lead the Way

    Dr. Pauling concluded his speech at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation by saying, “I hope that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will work in the effort to make the United States into a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”

    We are trying to do this, and I ask you to join in the effort to make the United States a moral country that could lead the way in achieving “a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”

    To make the United States a moral country, we should take the following steps:

    1. End the nuclear threat, and work to abolish all nuclear weapons from Earth. Nothing could be more immoral than threatening to murder hundreds of millions of innocent people in the name of national security. Remember this: nuclear weapons incinerate people. They are instruments of genocide that no sane nor moral person would ever want to be faced with using. And yet, even now, more than eight years into the post-Cold War era, we continue to rely upon these weapons and our official policy states that we will do so for the indefinite future. At many international conferences connected with the Non-Proliferation Treaty that I have attended, it has been the representatives of the United States who have thrown up the greatest stumbling blocks to nuclear disarmament. If we are to have a moral country this must change.

    2. Support an Arms Trade Code of Conduct. Stop selling arms to dictators and countries that violate human rights. The United States has become the arms salesman to the world. We lead all other nations in the sale of armaments. If we are to be a moral country, we must cease this practice, and place strict limitations on the transfer of armaments to other nations.

    3. Reallocate resources from military purposes to supporting adequate nutrition, health care, shelter and education for all members of society. The United States is the undisputed world champion in military spending. We spend more than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. These include Russia, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany and China. We need to realize that security requires more than military power. It also requires meeting human needs. A moral nation can be judged by its compassion toward its poorest and least fortunate members.

    4. Abide by international law and work to strengthen it. On many occasions in our recent past we have chosen not to give our support to international law. We were in the minority of nations in opposing a global ban on landmines, although most of our allies supported this ban. We were again in the minority in opposing the creation of an International Criminal Court, although most of our allies supported the creation of this court – a court to hold individuals accountable for the worst violations of international law, the ones that we held the Nazi leaders accountable for at Nuremberg. Recently, we took it upon ourselves to bomb sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for terrorist attacks rather than turning this matter over to the United Nations Security Council as we are required to do under international law. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot both fight terrorism and be terrorists ourselves.

    5. End all covert actions designed to destabilize or overthrow foreign governments. If we wish to see governments changed in other countries, we should speak out and give support to the opposition. We should not, however, be secretly providing arms, fomenting revolution, or attempting political assassinations. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot use immoral means to achieve what we believe are good ends.

    6. Work to resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and the International Court of Justice. There are many means to resolve conflicts short of violence, and to be a moral country we must support these means and use them. When a country is powerful militarily, as we are, there is a temptation to rely upon raw force rather than the power of the law. This temptation must be resisted.

    7. Apply our science and technology in constructive ways for the good of humanity rather than in destructive ways. Far too much of our government research and development budget goes into ever more sophisticated weaponry. Despite having agreed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we are still conducting “subcritical” tests of nuclear weapons. In doing so, we violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. If we are to be a moral country, we must shift our technological priorities to fighting infant mortality, combating disease, improving nutrition, eliminating pollution, and eradicating poverty.

    8. Be honest with the American people. Stop hiding information under the guise of national security. Pursue a policy of informed consent. Without honesty and full information from the officials we elect, we cannot make informed decisions about the kind of future we choose for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. If we are to have a moral country, we must have an honest and open government.

    There is, of course, more we must do to be a moral country, but these steps would set us on the right road. They are steps that I feel certain Linus Pauling would support with all his energy, and I encourage you to endorse them and work for them as well.

    In the concluding chapter of his book, Linus Pauling wrote: “I believe that there is a greater power in the world than the evil power of military force, of nuclear bombs – there is the power of good, of morality, of humanitarianism.” He also wrote: “I believe in the power of the human spirit.”

    There is no greater force than the power of the people when moved to action. The power of the people brought independence to India. It ended the war in Vietnam. It brought down the Berlin Wall. It ended the Cold War. It brought democracy to Eastern Europe and to Russia. It ended the Duvallier regime in Haiti, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and the Suharto regime in Indonesia. It brought down the regime based on apartheid in South Africa, and brought forth a leader like Nelson Mandela who has lived with the spirit of forgiveness.

    If the American people are moved to action, we can create a moral country. Our first step must be to end the intolerable threat that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. We must complete the task that Linus Pauling and other peace leaders began more than four decades ago. We stand on the threshold of a new century. Let us commit ourselves to crossing this threshold with a treaty in place to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

    There is great power for both good and evil in the human spirit. Let us choose good, let us choose life, let us choose hope, let us choose peace. Let us work, as Linus Pauling did, to make our country “a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.” This was the challenge that Linus Pauling worked for during his life, and the legacy he has left to us.